more feedback on candidate packages

Thanks for feedback on these (I was not expecting the first candidate packages to be the good ones anyway J

I also noticed something else that may need more effort:

- The conformance claims now need to accommodate the various ways to conform to a profile , e.g. as “CORE” or as “HTTP-TRANSPORT”, as these are now more formally identified by different conformance clauses. So we may want to make these schemas more precise for doing so, while not breaking compatibility with existing claims ideally.

- The conformance claim URI in BSP11 (" http://ws-i.org/profiles/basic-security/1.1/core " ) is a bit at odd with the other claim URIs (e.g. http://ws-i.org/profiles/basic-profile/1.2/Conformant) That needs to be adjusted, especially now that we add a schema for BSP11 claims that never was mentioned before. (meaning no compatibility with the old one ?)

Thanks,

-jacques

ws-brsp message